Citation

Mitchell CR. J. Peace Res. 1980; 17(1): 61-75.

Copyright

(Copyright © 1980, SAGE Publishing)

DOI

10.1177/002234338001700105

PMID

unavailable

Abstract

The argument that social or international conflicts are functional or dysfunctional is re- examined. It is suggested that discussion has tended to confuse at least three levels at which any conflict could realistically and usefully be evaluated; that of the parties engaged in the conflict, that of factions and individuals within each of the parties, and that of the overall social system within which the conflict occurs. Various kinds of costs and benefits of engaging and then succeeding in a conflict are considered, ranging from economic or political to psychological, including costs and benefits that are deferred to some future time. The point of view that sees conflicts as simply functional or dysfunctional is criticised and instead it is suggested that these terms be seen as an invitation to carry out some form of cost calculation, bearing in mind key considerations of 'Functional for whom and over what time period?' Finally, it is argued that any efforts to resolve (or even merely to settle) the conflict should take account of benefits some may achieve by active participation and role playing, so any solution should find some compensation for such foregone benefits. Illustrations are drawn from the settlement ending the civil war in the Sudan.