The “Innocence of the Muslims” conflict is structured below. The structure is based on research synthesizing the five major paradigms of conflict management. Those five are: Jurgen Habermas’ Communicative Action, Robert Axelrod’s Game theory, Louis Pondy’s Organizational Conflict, Blake and Mouton’s Managerial Grid, and Ury and Fisher’s Interest based bargaining.
There are four major factors of all conflict: Goal/sides/power differential/total value of contested goal as an outcome
Goal: Removal of the youtube video: “Innocence of the Muslims” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MAiOEV0v2RM&feature=related
The fact is that the video is up.
Note: There is also a values (interest-based) conflict between both sides. The values in conflict are freedom of speech vs. limiting speech to that which only conveys “Respect for Prophet Mohammed”.
Those who posted the video are not as concerned with the respect of the prophet as those who wish it removed. Thus, the fact and values are logically related to the sides taken in the conflict.
This goal, video up vs. video down, is a rival goal as are the values. It can’t have both ways. It is not a matter of semantics. Video up equals disrespect. Video down is the mandate given by Mullahs to all those who do respect.
Sides:
(1) Defenders of the character and reputation of Mohammed
(2) Non-defenders of the character of Mohammed who placed the video and those who allow its continuance.
Note: It is important not to see this as an “international” conflict between nations. It is an ideological conflict between those who use free speech to “disrespect the prophet” and those who are appointed to “defend the character of the prophet”.
Power differential:
Stronger Side: The person who put the video up controls or has access directly to the video, media, and is supported by the right of free speech within the US. This is strong political, technological and sovereign power. They are the stronger side for now as the video remains up and they are in control. This is side (2).
Weaker Side: Those who want the video down have less power. They cannot unilaterally take it down as the owner (2) could. They cannot remove the right to freedom of speech supported by the US. The cannot breach sovereign immunity of the US and just kill the people or destroy property to “force” the video down. These are side (1).
Each side, must plead its case in the public eye on a set of norms and international values that calls for legitimately agreed upon rules. This power difference is medium considered medium. If the power difference were high, defenders (1) could simply force the video down by brute force. If the power differential was low, both sides might come together to discuss the possibility of some “win win” solution. Neither will likely happen since the US embraces freedom of speech and separation of church and state. Many defender groups (1) are in cultures that embrace theocracy. In this case, the defenders would like to convince the non defenders that the “non defender culture” must change. This can be done only through legitimate channels and not by force of arms.
Medium power differential a state where each side can use empathy and logic only to convince other. Values and character issues are at stake. US Muslims can take to the streets or courts but cannot kill or destroy to stop such disrespect. Non US Muslims have options of media, international forums, and internet responses as well. They are using some of these to protest in their own nations where it is seen as appropriate. If this were the extent of the conflict behavior, it would be clear. But the conflict was escalated by killings.
Escalation: (See typology) The killing of US diplomats is an escalation of conflict from the medium power differential to a high power differential (coercive).
It creates a second conflict not between ideologies but between nations. This is based on sovereignty and diplomatic status/immunity. This is a second conflict taken up, not by YouTube, but by the President and the State Department of the US. This assassination conflict can be structured in the same way as this YouTube video conflict analysis is structured.
Insurance will take care of the looting damage so that is minor issue we do not need to address at this time.
Total value of outcome:
The conflict paradigms all predict worse outcomes related to the goal when higher power difference is employed rather than a balanced approach to more positive relations. In this case, the positive relations refer to the relations directly between (1) and (2) and not any third party god or prophet or nation. If the goal was to remove the video, using physical rather than more legitimate means is predicted to have negative consequences. Such is the case.
The video is on YouTube still and has over 6, 174, 874 views on 9/18/2012, 10,812,000+ views on 9/19/12. The continued posting on Google’s youtube is dedicated to the death of J Christopher Stevens, US Ambassador.
Respect is not a tangible goal but a value…one that different people value differently.
If respect is forced by coercion, it will lead the entire world and most conflicts into the high power differential (coercive thought control) area. The five major conflict management paradigms note this as a place that is to be avoided assiduously.
Typology:
Escalation to level of a focusing event using violent coercive tactics. The conflict is made to be about more than the video by (1). It is extended to an ideological conflict and played to that end. A focusing event precipitates actions around any particular issue to bring wider change and power balance. Those who want the video down, may also try to use this to take down the US in the larger political picture.
Notes:
The response of the weaker defender side (1) was violence when marches mixed with reason and respect for human life could have been powerfully used. They escalated the conflict to physical violence without asking first asking that the video central to their complaint be addressed or without responding on the same communicative level. This is similar to the case of the Dutch Cartoons that were a satire on Islam. Certainly marching in the streets would have everyone’s attention. Such a march is similar to a movie drama but with real people in mass. Showing the contested parts of the video could have worked well. Simply saying that such videos are offensive and inappropriate was an option too, though it would have been quite ineffective, it seems the number of viewers would have been less than the many millions the video has globally today.
It may be wise to keep those such movies out of the lands where Islam is the official religion. Still, that is up to the media or the nation that censors the media. The US ideology keeps things at the medium level of power differential. Here, in the US, there is some defection and misrepresentation of everything, some bluffing, some playing the system, some competition, but no physical violence and, in the end, many religions are both mocked and adored without fear.
The reaction of the stronger side (2) is reasonable. To say that all the US does not believe the message of this video but that we value freedom of speech and will not have any more respect for Mohammed than we do for Jesus, God, Buddha, or anyone else is accurate.
Everyone is fair game for mocking in the US, even presidential candidates.
Have you seen the play, “Book of Mormon”. What if that play was, “Prophet Mohammed” but in a similar vein to the Broadway Musical? In the end, just what are the limits to comments that lampoon Mohammed? Perhaps this is a nice dialogue for the Charlie Rose show. I look forward to the day when everyone can positively engage each other without fear or coercion. We will see it.
Your thoughts are appreciated.
Jim
Conflict of the Day: Different day, same pattern 