This is an extraordinarily rich and stimulating book examining ways to approach the most destructive and protracted types of conflicts, ranging from marriages gone bad to the Middle East. The author, a specialist in conflict resolution, wrote it for a general audience based on the collaborative efforts of an intellectually diverse group of researchers from a broad range of disciplines based at Columbia University. So the book connects the dots between insights from complexity theory in science and mathematics, physics, psychology, political theory, and philosophy.
It took me a long time to read, and I read the first half of the book twice, just because there is so much there and it's a lot to digest. However, the writing style is very clear and does an impressive job of conveying complex concepts in straightforward language that doesn't require any specialist background to understand. And it's so illuminating for thinking about current affairs that it's one of those books I would ideally like to assign to every U.S. citizen for homework reading, if I were in charge of voter education. As one friend with a political science background once observed to me, a lot of people "new" to thinking about politics became very much more interested in understanding and reading about it and discussing it for the first time after the 2016 U.S. elections. That was partly because so many people were in shock about the election results and were struggling to understand how those results defied most predictions and polling. But with the daily onslaught of extreme and shocking news developments, without a conceptual framework based on studying political theory, it's been challenging for those like me in that boat to make sense of the patterns and possible solutions.
The book starts from the observation that in the history of conflict resolution efforts, most conflicts can be resolved by applying a set of standard principles, such as identifying and satisfying the interests of the parties. But a small percentage of conflicts, around five percent, do not seem amenable to these traditional methods, and instead become drawn out, and turn into mutually harmful repeating patterns or toxic cycles with lose-lose outcomes. So the goal is to look at why those conflicts are intractable and the different approaches needed to shift the patterns toward peace and resolution.
The "why" of these conflicts becoming intractable has a lot to do their complexity as dense webs of interacting causes and effects, some of which become causal hubs or "attractors" for the conflict. These webs - which the book calls "attractor landscapes" - are dynamic through time and continually developing, so part of why traditional approaches don't work is because the traditional approaches depend on an idea of conflict elements as static and use short-term strategies for resolution, as well as linear thinking that doesn't apply well to non-linear looping and interconnected elements of attractor landscapes in intractable conflicts.
Some important concepts here are the ideas of reinforcing feedback loops, where a set of interconnected influences reinforce and strengthen each other; and inhibiting feedback loops, which push back against or restrain a given pattern of influences. An example of inhibiting feedback might be norms of nonviolence in civil protests, reinforced by laws against violence and enforcement of those laws, which interact to inhibit escalatory spirals of violence during periods of civil unrest. Another key concept is that of a self-organizing system, where the attractor landscape has enough reinforcing feedback loops and few enough inhibiting feedback loops that the attractors to conflict become very strong and the system takes on a life of its own, such that attempts to intervene from either the outside or the inside wind up just feeding the conflict further and dragging would-be interveners into the conflict as participants.
Coleman identifies certain aspects of psychology that combine with the dense complexity of conflict landscapes to make them difficult to disrupt - specifically, people's tendency is to want to simplify the complexity into an easier and more coherent narrative. Often this psychological drive to find coherence leads to "us versus them" thinking where people conceive of the conflict as all boiling down to "THEY are the problem, WE are the good people, THEY are the evil/inhuman/worthless monsters/trash, the way to solve the problem is to eliminate THEM or beat THEM." Another aspect that is key is the role of emotions in these conflicts. The emotional backdrop tends to be intense, involving trauma, grief, rage, fear, and disgust. A weakness of traditional conflict resolution is that it tends to privilege rationality and devalues or deemphasizes emotions and non-rational factors.
The prevalence of oversimplifying good-versus-evil narratives in these conflicts tends to get in the way of people grasping the full complexity and the self-reinforcing, dynamic structure of the conflict attractor landscape. So, mapping the interplay of the structural nodes of the conflict through time and getting a handle on where the reinforcing feedback loops are, is key to figuring out ways to tinker with those patterns and reverse the strength of the feedback loops. Strategic thinking about the landscape as a whole can identify multiple points where new inhibiting feedback loops can be introduced, such as new laws, new institutions, newly agreed-upon norms, and so on. It can also help identify where removing some influential factors and introducing other influential factors can be most effective to change the overall pattern rather than simply participating in existing dynamics.
This is a book to create hope of finding solutions instead of just falling into despairing beliefs that existing toxic patterns in society or in our interpersonal relationships are inescapable. One of the most important insights here is that the potential for peace and positive, beneficial attractor landscapes always exist simultaneously and within the negative attractor landscapes. Conversely, we can never be too complacent about peace and good order or healthy relationships, since the potential always exists there for being drawn into mutually destructive, protracted toxicity.