PowerPoint Format   Shockwave/ Flash Format

It may come as a surprise, particularly since we often dwell on the costs of conflict, that conflict also has benefits. Yet, clearly there are significant benefits to conflict or it would not be the prominent characteristic of human relationships that it is. Conflict is often driven by a sense of grievance, be it scarcity, inequality, cultural or moral differences, or the distribution of power.[1] Thereby, engaging in the conflict provides one means of addressing these concerns--either affirming a position of advantage or overcoming perceived shortcomings.[2] Conflict, says Guy Burgess "is the engine of social learning." Without conflict, attitudes, behavior, and relationships stay the same, regardless of whether they are fair. Conflict reveals problems and encourages those problems to be dealt with. Whether they are dealt with constructively or destructively depends on how the conflict is handled.

To say that there are benefits to conflict is certainly not to say that motivations or consequences are always benign or just. Spoilers benefit from sustaining conflict, but most outside observers would probably argue that their actions are malign. Conflict profiteers also gain from conflict by gaining money or power, but those gains are also widely viewed as illegitimate. Legitimate benefits of conflict accrue to much wider groupings. While certainly not exhaustive, some of the most significant benefits of conflict are social, psychological, and material.

Social interaction often begins through some form of conflict. Coser explains that children often first interact when they fight over a toy; this later evolves into cooperative play. Adults too, he observes, often might first in the context of the dispute. Once the dispute is resolved, trust can be gained, and the parties can interact smoothly after that.

Conflict is particularly prevalent, Coser observes, in intimate relationships.[3] It is extremely unlikely that two people living and working together in close proximity over a long period of time would not disagree on anything. So absence of conflict probably suggests that one person is being suppressed or is subordinating his or her view or wishes to the other. This might be acceptable over the short term, but over the long term, it is very dangerous to the relationship as anger is likely to build to the point where the conflict, when it surfaces, will be very intense.

Yet constructively handled conflict can lead to long-term peace and cooperation. Husbands and wives in strong relationships will not always agree, but they will have a constructive process for resolving their differences.

Similar processes appear to be at work in parent-child relationships. For example, studies have suggested that relationships between children and adults often begin conflictually and then develop in more positive directions.[4]

Conflict often has significant benefits for group cohesion. It can help to construct group boundaries by helping individuals recognize their common interest. War, for example, has been described as the creator of the modern nation-state, at least in Europe. Conflict, thus, can provide stability and serve as a unifying force. In helping individuals to realize their common interest, conflict can go a long way in constructing identities, an issue to be taken up below. Facing a common opponent can create new bonds and associations amongst those that previously were unrelated. Identifying a common threat may allow individuals to not only realize a common interest but also to reaffirm a shared identity that may have a longer history. Groups may actually seek enemies to maintain internal cohesion.[5] (For example, it has been argued that the U.S. had to find an enemy to replace the U.S.S.R. once the Cold War ended. Iraq, it was argued, was the unlucky choice.)

Group cohesion may be strengthened as much, if not more, by an internal threat. In some cases, conflict can provide a safety-valve to allow a group to clear the air in a less destructive way than might otherwise occur. The potential also clearly exists for this to descend into scapegoating, which may or may not be beneficial for cohesion. Infighting has costs of its own and may be dysfunctional. Expressing anger to the in-group is more costly. At the same time, in some instances it might be preferable to social breakdown. Whether in the international system or in families, conflict can give rise to new norms and rules to govern conduct which can have long-term benefits. Likewise, in domestic contexts, conflict can lead to establishing new statutes meant to deal with the sources of conflict. In addition, in any of these contexts, institutions are often created to enforce new rules.

As the prior examples suggest, group cohesion can be important for fighting oppression. This is a defensive mechanism that applies as much to a national group as it does to an interest group that finds its core interest at risk. Conflict allows groups and individuals to protect their interests. Conflict can also bring about needed social change and empower previously lower-powered groups. After all, if no one ever contested anything, many gross injustices would continue indefinitely.

As introduced above, conflict can initiate a process through which individuals realize they have common interests and common enemies. As a result, individuals may come to see a strong stake in their side emerging triumphant. One's identity is important for maintaining self-esteem. Therefore, the more of one's identity that is tied up in the group, the more likely individuals are to fight for it. The threat produced by conflict often results in stronger self-identities. This can be positive or negative depending on the nature of that identity.

Conflict often has concrete material rewards in the form of land, treasure, and the like. It provides benefits in terms enhancing one's power. For example, as a result of the first Gulf War, the US gained strategic advantage in the Middle East, influence over the two most important oil states, namely Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, and established military bases in the region. As alluded to above, in discussing the benefits to group cohesion, interstate conflict often provides domestic benefit in terms of 'rallying around the flag.' India is so reluctant to part with Kashmir in part because of perceptions amongst political elites that it would lead to the unraveling of the entire multi-ethnic state.[6] Similarly, in the former Yugoslavia, Milosevic was able to gain political support by playing on historical sense of grievance and the conflict allowed Serbian nationalists to manipulate the political system to prevent true democracy.[7] What is more, economic sanctions designed to bring conflict to an end can actually benefit the targets. One way in which this happens is that arms embargos encourage the to development of domestic arms industries as was the case of sanctions against Pakistan and South Africa.[8]

A number of examples also point to the tremendous economic benefits that are often realized from conflict. Companies run by the Indonesian military had a monopoly on exports of Timorese agricultural and mineral production.[9] In the roughly 3 yr period after the Iraqi invasion, the US sold nearly $40 billion in arms to the region, accounting for 72.6% of all arms agreements in 1993.[10] US companies also got the lion's share of Kuwaiti reconstruction contracts with Bechtel Corporation alone making $216 million.[11] Civil wars also provide significant opportunities for "conflict entrepreneurs" to profit from the conflict thereby making them reluctant to see it end. Spoilers benefit from continued conflict by engaging in smuggling to evade embargoes. Often, patronage links for family and friends are built up that creates further obstacles to ending the conflict. For example, many in the Serbian political elite became wealthy through stealing from the central bank and controlling smuggling to evade sanctions.[12] The development of the South African arms industry after the 1977 embargo did more than directly arm the South African government. South Africa became a major exporter of sophisticated arms. In the 1980s, it had grown to be the sixth largest weapons exporter in the world and employed nearly 140,000 people and the country remains a major weapons supplier today.[13] Selden and Weiss go on to make the larger point that "export sanctions tend to create groups within the offending country with a material incentive to see that sanctions remain, and these groups try to influence the target country's Government to maintain the policies that prompted the sanctions."[14]

Conflict also frequently provides significant benefits to those that are ostensibly bystanders to the conflict. Often, those on the sidelines see their relative power increase as a result of combatants weakening each other. For example, Saudi participation in the Gulf War enhanced its position as a regional leader.[15] Many conflicts also provide the opportunity for outside parties to sell goods to fuel the conflict. For example, Western arms suppliers have been prime beneficiaries of conflict in East Timor.[16] As a result of Operation Desert Shield and Desert Storm, the Saudis saw increased oil profits as a result of the spike in prices from war disruption and reduction in supply from Iraq.[17] Between 1988 and 1992, Western, Chinese, and Soviet arms sales to India were US$12 billion and US$3.5 billion for Pakistan from the continued conflict in Kashmir. After the US placed an embargo on the Soviet Union as a result of its invasion of Afghanistan, the Argentine agricultural sector stepped in to supply the Soviets. Some individuals and companies from the EU have been implicated in benefiting from conflict in the former Yugoslavia by smuggling arms, drugs, and money laundering.[18]

[1] Louis Kriesberg, Constructive Conflicts: From Escalation to Resolution Second Edition. (Lanham MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2003), Chapter 2.

[2] Ibid., Chapter 3.

[3] Lewis A. Coser, "The Functions of Social Conflict." New York: Free Press, 1964.

[4] Ibid., p. 122.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Nils Bhinda, "The Kashmir Conflict." In The True Cost of Conflict: Seven Recent Wars and Their Effects on Society, Michael Cranna, Ed. New York: The New Press, 1994.

[7] Angela Burke, Gordon Macdonald, "The former Yugoslavia Conflict." In The True Cost of Conflict: Seven Recent Wars and Their Effects on Society, Michael Cranna, Ed. New York: The New Press, 1994.

[8] Bhinda in Cranna.; Zachary Selden, Stanley A. Weiss, 'Often Worse than Ineffective' Sanctions: Don't Love Them or Hate Them, Make Them Work. United Nations. United Nations Chronicle Online, 1999-01-01.

[9] Ian Robinson, "The East Timor Conflict (1975- )," in The True Cost of Conflict: Seven Recent Wars and Their Effects on Society, Michael Cranna, Ed. (New York: The New Press, 1994) p. 15-6.

[10]Gregory Quinn, "The Iraq Conflict." In The True Cost of Conflict: Seven Recent Wars and Their Effects on Society, Michael Cranna, Ed. New York: The New Press, 1994, p.45.

[11] Ibid., p. 46.

[12] Burke and Macdonald in Cranna.

[13] Selden and Weiss.

[14] Ibid.

[15] Quinn in Cranna.

[16] Robinson in Cranna.

[17] Quinn in Cranna.

[18] Burke and Macdonald in Cranna.