Psychological Interpretation Of Conflict On The Eye Of Staub And Overcoming Evil

Conflict could be stated as a ‘a solemn difference between two or more beliefs, ideas or interests.’ In general, it is a fairly indispensable part of our lives as well as shapes individuals into who they are, and due to the consequences that linger around conflicts , it affects the relationship they have built with others along with their opinions towards them. This is evident in the award-winning play written by William Shakespeare, Romeo and Juliet. In which the two families , Capulet and Montague constantly compete each other, and in the midst of this heat, ‘a pair of star cross’d lovers’ strive for the sake of their short-lived love; as a result causing what is now known as ‘the tragedy of Romeo and Juliet’. Correspondingly, in S.E

In general, conflict theory is to explain the conflict between authority groups and powerless groups through the uneven distribution of power and resources in society (Lai, 2013). It is based entirely in power and how those in power do all they can to hold the majority of the population down and to keep them from gaining power, so as to secure their own position. Conflict theorists all assume that the existing social order is not a product of consensus and mutual benefit but rather a function of power differentials in society. These perspectives recognize that societal resources are limited and contend that opposing groups are in a constant struggle for a greater share of the resources and power that comes with them. As groups struggle to gain

The conflict perspective highlights the notion that society consists of individuals of different social classes and status groups that are of conflicting self- interests. As

Encountering conflict is an inevitable facet of human existence, which by definition is the opposition of intangible entities. From conflict individuals and societies may be challenged and furthered in terms of social and moral values and beliefs, as each comes to encounter the underlying and intangible elements of conflict and through this, humanity.

Lives will continue to be lost until treaties are established and international law is strengthened to apply to each and every country. Activists and protesters deserve fair and just treatment, and officials need to be monitored appropriately. The UN has officiated more than 560 treaties, and has an International Court of Justice to carry out the enforcement of human rights (UN). Civil action must be taken, and on a higher level than previous years. Growing discipline for all nations and setting the bar higher for everyone will slowly but surely regulate behavior and settle international relations. In an article from The Hindu, written by Nehginpao Kipgen, an ethnic cleansing is reported taking place in Myanmar during 2017. The government felt they had the power to drive 700,000 Rohingya muslims out of the country, and their actions were depicted as “crimes against humanity” by the UN (Kipgen). The ultimate solution was brought upon by the United Nations security council, and scrutinized the government by ordering them to resolve their wrongdoings and check their authority. This source again shows how international organizations have the power to stop unjust fatalities and unproportional governmental

Concerning the ethnic minorities of Burma, I believe that we are in a period where carefully analyzed humanitarian input can have a successful impact. Unlike the genocide in Darfur, we’re aware of a developing situation where large-scale genocide has not taken place yet. History further lends a hand in paralleling the cordoning in society of minorities such as the Rohingya with that of the black African minorities in the Nuba Mountains of Sudan. Lessons gained in the events in Sudan should be considered in defending the minorities of Burma who are facing human rights violation.

He acknowledges the idea that others look at conflict theory as pertaining to specific events in history; however, he insists that it is more than that and that “the perspective is much broader and includes all of what goes on in society” (Collins 1994:47). He stresses upon the fact that it is not about simply having conflicts occur, but rather, how domination happens even when conflict is not outwardly occuring (Collins 1994:47).

Conflict theory sees societies comprised of groups with conflicting values and interests. (Vold et al. 1998)

Conflict is like a person stalking you, you know there there you just carnt find them and becomes frustrating. Thats just like what conflict it is, one big misunderstanding in someways that becomes frustrating. Strength is one way to help get through this world. It can make you stronger of it can tear you down. Beliefs are tested and put to the test when something isn't right. Humans minds are put to the test and everyone tried to fix the problem. In desperate times of needs family’s are sometimes all you have and maybe all that you need but may not be able to reach them. Causing humans to go mental and do things that they will soon regret. Sometimes its not you that causes the conflict but its you that receives the conflict. For one to examine

In the past two years, a genocide has been going on in Myanmar that little people around the world know about. The victims that have been affected by this mass murder are the Rohingya Muslims, who originated from the subcontinent of India and are a minority group that makes up 5% of the country’s population. Today, the physical and emotional abuse endured by the Rohingya Muslims prevails a prominent issue in the Middle East. Over in Burma, many of the Muslims are murdered, beaten, or attacked by various religious groups, while government officials either stand and watch or occasionally help.

Conflict theory is the theory that human behavior in social contexts is the result of conflicts between competing groups, as different social groups, be they class-, gender- or race-defined, have unequal power and access to power, yet all groups compete for limited resources. This inevitably gives rise to tension and conflict, albeit often of the subtle variety, as oftentimes the conflicts between groups have been institutionalized in society to such a degree that the conflicts and tensions are such an expected part of society that the conflict, and inequality, itself disappears from public sight, and consciousness. For example, an adherent of a world systems theory of conflict would point to the global competition for resources, particularly the inequality between rich and poor nations struggling to provide the basic necessities of life to their inhabitants, as evidence of global conflict. Conflict theories seek to explain the interactions of groups within society, and assert that social order is preserved involuntarily through the exercise of power one social class holds over another (Lindsey, 2010, 7). The conflict between groups is not always obvious or apparent, so it must be unraveled and examined in order to identify and establish the impact of such conflict on society as a whole, as well as individual members and social groupings.

Conflict is defined as the behaviour due to which people differ in their feelings, thought and/or actions. Collins (1995) states that the conflict is a ‘serious disagreement and argument about something important’ and also as ‘a serious difference between two or more beliefs, ideas or interests’ (cf. Kumaraswamy, 1997, p. 96). In general it is believed that conflicts are the underlying cause of disputes. In other words, dispute is a manifestation of the deep rooted conflict. A dispute is defined as ‘a class or kind of conflict, which manifests itself in distinct, justifiable issues. It involves disagreement over issues capable of resolution by negotiation, mediation or third party adjudication’

The Buddhists who have had dominant political and social influence in society have bullied the Muslims and use multiple modes of threat against Muslims. Though some of the causal mechanisms are more evident, they all overlap and intertwine to help give a full explanation of the conflict in Myanmar. In 1982, the government passed the Burmese nationality law that denied Rohingya Muslims from being citizens. This creates an identity conflict within the group of Rohingya Muslims. Checkel’s piece on constructivism helps best understand and implore new social policies ensue conflict. Checkel describes constructivism as “a story of boundedly rational individuals (note – not instrumentally rational) taking cues from their social environment that then lead them to enact certain roles; this is the underlying dynamic in March and Olsen’s (1998) logic of appropriateness”. Checkel’s theory of constructivism helps understand how institutions such as the government and the religion of Buddhism play a large and intertwining role with agents in conflicts. Institutions, such as the government, build social and community environments which could benefit or harm both parties of conflict. The influence of institutions is an indicator that this conflict is best viewed by a “soft” approach, meaning identities are formed by elites, or top-down. In the case of Myanmar, in 2001, The Fear of Losing One's Race, as well as many other anti-Muslim literature pamphlets were passed out and distributed to

The nation of Myanmar, also known as Burma, is currently under the rule of a ruthless totalitarian regime, guilty of numerous human rights violations and target of intense international criticism. Located in Southeast Asia, on the western border of Thailand and Laos, it has been under military rule since World War II. Burma is mired in socioeconomic crisis stemming from the rule of the military junta, and the citizens are suffering. The environment of Burma is being destroyed, the people are treated inhumanely, and the country is notorious for its contribution to global narcotics. The paragraphs below detail the current situations facing the country, why they came about, and the parties that are to blame for

In this memo I argue that Myanmar is likely to be a greater risk of political violence. From the theoretical perspective, there is a curvilinear relationship between the level of democracy and political violence; from the empirical perspective, the problems with legislation system, minority and religion, and natural resources lead to aggravation of violence.