Conflict theorists Pruitt, Rubin and Kim (2003) list five changes that occur as a conflict escalates. First, parties move from light tactics to heavy tactics. Light tactics include such things as persuasive arguments, promises, and efforts to please the other side, while heavy tactics include threats, power plays, and even violence. Second, the conflict grows in size. The numbers of issues in contention expands, and parties devote more resources to the struggle. Third, issues move from specific to general, and the relationship between the parties deteriorates. Parties develop grandiose positions, and often perceive the other side as "evil." Fourth, the number of parties grows from one to many, as more and more people and groups are drawn into
…show more content…
Where parties or institutions do not manage conflict well and react with force, conflict can escalate. Conflict escalation describes the escalation of a conflict to a more destructive, confrontational, painful, or otherwise "less comfortable" level; in particular, it is concerned with how persons or forces can be controlled or subdued in conflict. Repression in any form (e.g. discriminatory legislation) stimulates the switch from nonviolence to violence particularly when the net opportunity cost of violence is small. There are at least two steps in the process of switching from nonviolence to violence. First, there is an emotional reaction to repression by classifying it as unjust, causing outrage, or by heightening an individual’s desire for security. Second, there is a decision on how to deal with this emotion, based on a calculation of the costs and benefits of violence. This process suggests that a synthesis of emotion-based and rational choice approaches is not only possible, but necessary, to explain why some nonviolent protest movements turn violent. While emotions are micro-level mechanisms motivating the recourse to violence, they are moderated by the opportunity costs of violent rebellion, which in turn, are weighed against the emotional or other intangible rewards from a violent response to repression (Sambanis and Zinn
Where parties or institutions do not manage conflict well and react with force, conflict can escalate. Conflict escalation describes the escalation of a conflict to a more destructive, confrontational, painful, or otherwise "less comfortable" level; in particular, it is concerned with how persons or forces can be controlled or subdued in conflict. Repression in any form (e.g. discriminatory legislation) stimulates the switch from nonviolence to violence particularly when the net opportunity cost of violence is small. There are at least two steps in the process of switching from nonviolence to violence. First, there is an emotional reaction to repression by classifying it as unjust, causing outrage, or by heightening an individual’s desire for security. Second, there is a decision on how to deal with this emotion, based on a calculation of the costs and benefits of violence. This process suggests that a synthesis of emotion-based and rational choice approaches is not only possible, but necessary, to explain why some nonviolent protest movements turn violent. While emotions are micro-level mechanisms motivating the recourse to violence, they are moderated by the opportunity costs of violent rebellion, which in turn, are weighed against the emotional or other intangible rewards from a violent response to repression (Sambanis and Zinn