Interview

The Value of Understanding the Role of Value Systems in Violent Conflicts

Interview | February 16, 2022

The Center for Security Studies (CSS) at ETH Zürich recently released a new report examining the role of value systems—both religious and secular—in conflict and peacebuilding. The report argues that the importance of value systems should be right-sized, rather than over-emphasized or under-emphasized, in relation to the more tangible drivers of violent conflict.

The report was co-authored by Abbas Aroua, Jean-Nicolas Bitter, and Simon J. A. Mason. Aroua is the founding director of the Cordoba Peace Institute–Geneva (CPI). Bitter is senior advisor on religion, politics and conflict at the Swiss Federal Department of Foreign Affairs (FDFA). The opinions expressed here reflect his personal views and are not those of the Swiss FDFA. Mason works at the Center for Security Studies (CSS) at ETH Zürich within the Culture and Religion in Mediation program (CARIM, a CSS ETH Zürich and Swiss FDFA initiative).

In this interview with Religion & Diplomacy editor Judd Birdsall, the three co-authors unpack the key messages of the report and its implications for foreign policy practitioners.

 

Birdsall: It’s common to hear certain armed conflicts described as “sectarian conflicts” or “religious wars.” You begin the report by claiming there is no such thing as a “religious conflict.” Why is that?

Abbas, Bitter, and Mason: Conflicts are complex. Especially in violent, societal conflict, there are nearly always numerous issues, actors, and also diverse contextual factors which shape dynamics and that change over time. “Religious conflict” or “environmental conflict” give the false impression that there is only one issue, one driving factor, one “root cause.” Furthermore, value systems often shape the way actors give meaning to issues—for example security, resource management, or political power-sharing—and thus looking at value systems totally separated from these issues is short-sighted.

On an empirical level, we see from research by Uppsala University that more than half of all armed conflicts involve issues where actors have made their claims in religious terms, but this does not mean that there are no other issues raised by these same actors that are not framed in religious terms.

Birdsall: In the report you warn against both under-emphasizing and over-emphasizing the role of religious or secular value systems in conflict. What can happen when we make either mistake?

Abbas, Bitter, and Mason: If we under-emphasize the role of religious or secular value systems it seems more likely that we will not understand why actors are acting the way they are, as we ignore their frames of reference, their ways of finding and making meaning in the world. A result of this can be to opt for shortcuts, such as dehumanizing the “other” or labelling them as “terrorist” or “pathological,” as we simply cannot make sense of what is going on. Obviously, this has major implications for the approach we then choose to deal with the “other”: for example, killing vs. talking.

If we over-emphasize the role of religious or secular value systems, there is a danger that we ignore the physical, tangible reality of conflict: the things you can touch, count, and measure. Especially in asymmetric conflicts, only exploring the level of value systems may lead us to ignore asymmetries, for example, one side may be economically disadvantaged, or severely affected by starvation while the other side is living in luxury, or the numbers killed in war are far greater. Just looking at value systems and meaning-making can make us blind to this tangible reality.

Birdsall: I suppose there could be under-emphasis and over-emphasis at play in regards to the same conflict. For instance, if we think about the U.S.-led wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, some voices in Washington and elsewhere largely discounted the relevance of religion, in favor of more tangible or material drivers of conflict, while others framed the conflicts in primarily religious terms. How can we forge more shared understanding of the complex, dynamic, socially embedded role of religious—or secular—value systems in conflict situations? 

Abbas, Bitter, and Mason: Humility seems to be the key. We need to engage and listen to others, including other third parties, who have different mindsets and value systems. It is hard work. When we are sure we are right, the arrogance blinds us from listening to others. Yet no one single actor or approach has the one and only truth. It is also striking how third parties can sometimes be respectful and good at listening to actors in a conflict context, but impatient to other third parties because they have a different approach.

Birdsall: Is it useful for policymakers and conflict mediators to try to identify the “root causes” of a violent conflict?

Abbas, Bitter, and Mason: It may be easier and wiser to simply avoid using the term. But if we do use the term “root causes,” it is certainly a good idea to clarify what we mean by it in the specific situation we are using it, and from whose perspective an issue is seen as a “root cause.” The point is that different actors will have different perspectives of what are the “root causes” of a conflict—not just between conflict parties, but also between third parties and conflict parties.

From a mediation and conflict transformation mindset, the focus on future ways of dealing with conflict in a specific context is more important than finding out what were the “root causes” of the conflict—this may in fact lead to a blame game that is not very helpful. Often using the term “issue” is safer, less judgmental. An issue can be “cause” or “effect”; it can be “root cause” or “symptom.” Qualifying the type and importance of an issue from different actors’ perspectives may still have to be done, but it is not predetermined through our labelling.

Birdsall: The report highlights the “ABC triangle” as a useful analytical framework. Tell us about that.

Abbas, Bitter, and Mason: Johan Galtung’s “Attitude-Behavior-Contradiction” (ABC) triangle is one way to structure our thinking and analysis of conflict. When we listen to conflict parties, what do we hear from them regarding: What is their attitude, their mindset, their perspective? What is their behavior (for example, violent or peaceful)? What is the contradiction, or the structures, issues, goals that the actors disagree about? They are interrelated, and value systems may shape all three dimensions, yet those who tend to over-emphasize value systems are likely to mainly focus on attitudes, and those who tend to under-emphasize value systems are likely to mainly focus on contradictions. Thus, the triangle can help us rebalance our natural biases and tendencies by pushing us to explore all three corners of the triangle.

Birdsall: One of the helpful reminders in this report is that religions—and especially interpretations of religions—are not static. What is an example of where you have seen religious re-interpretation play a critical role in de-escalating a violent conflict?

Abbas, Bitter, and Mason: Yes, interpretation/re-interpretations are not static. It is also important to note that they need to be made by the community itself—not by outsiders or actors not recognized as legitimate interpreters/re-interpreters by the concerned community.

One example we discuss in the report relates to debates around democracy in the Muslim world. “Democracy” may at times be seen negatively, not rooted in the Quran, alien to the Muslim world, and rather part of a Western, imperialistic project leading to wars such as in Iraq or Afghanistan. Reinterpretation of the Quran in light of the current context can shift this attitude. In the Quran (42:38), the principle of consultation among the members of the community regarding public affairs (shura) is stated clearly. But the way this principle is implemented in a particular context is a matter of interpretation. The mechanisms of consultation in the twenty-first century are different from those applied in the early times of Islam and have much in common with the democratic process. This kind of re-interpretation work also benefits from exploring the different forms—and misuse—of the term “democracy” in the West.

Another example we explore in the report is the way some Jewish national religious actors understand the question of controlling land, where there are alternatives to full exclusive political sovereignty over the land as a way to moving toward the final times.

Birdsall: Throughout the report you note that the value systems that inform conflict can be religious or secular. Is there anything that distinguishes the two in terms of how they can be used to frame, motivate, escalate, or de-escalate violent conflict? Is there anything about the spiritual or metaphysical dimension of religion that makes it not quite the functional equivalent of a secular value system in the context of conflict and peacebuilding?

Abbas, Bitter, and Mason: From a mediation and conflict transformation perspective, it is wise to avoid judging the similarity and differences between religious and secular value systems independent of context. There are, for example, some people who self-declare as secular but who also self-declare as being spiritual. Furthermore, some “religious” actors may be uncomfortable with spiritual or metaphysical associations of the term, giving greater emphasis to legal or behavioral aspects of religion. The term “secular” also has many different meanings in different contexts—from separating state and religion to being “anti-religious.” The term “religion” can also be misleading, as it has different meanings and is itself a product of a particular historical trajectory.

To make things more complicated: Many secular ideas also have religious roots. Some actors, for example, view international humanitarian law as seeped in religious discourses. Thus, the distinction between “religious” and “secular” requires a context-specific response, and depends on an actor’s perspective. The core idea of the phrase “religious and secular value system” is that we are all shaped by ideas, meaning-making processes, and socially constructed realities that shape and are shaped by tangible, physical reality, but that cannot be reduced to them.

Birdsall: What advice or further reading material would you suggest to foreign affairs practitioners who want to get more involved in the field of religion and peacebuilding?

Abbas, Bitter, and Mason: Practice a non-judgmental attitude toward the ideas and value systems of other actors. Understanding does not mean justifying or accepting all types of behavior (for example, violence), but rather seeing that sometimes there are good or plausible ways of living and making sense of the world that shape behavior that seem immoral, pathological, or even “evil” from our own value system’s perspective.

 

Full report: Abbas Aroua, Jean-Nicolas Bitter, and Simon J. A. Mason, “The Role of Value-Systems in Conflict Resolution,” CSS Policy Perspectives 9, no. 9 (November 2021).

Some additional readings on this topic: