Summary:
The field of peace and conflict studies is characterized by certain boundaries: In
general terms, researchers differentiate between normative and analytical approaches
as well as between structuralist, culturalist and actor oriented concepts. These different
perspectives are typically indicated by different notions of conflict and violence,
thereby often leading to an analytical separation between conflict analysis and conflict
resolution. Lars Schmitt’s working paper takes this constellation as a starting point
to develop a new perspective for the analysis and transformation of conflicts. His
analytical heuristic, the so called habitus-structure conflicts, attempts to overcome
these oppositions which are considered untenable from an epistemological viewpoint.
Based on the socioanalysis of Pierre Bourdieu, this heuristic is presented as a hermeneutic
circle indicating the interrelation of social inequality and power relations on the
one and conflicts on the other hand. Symbolic violence can be seen here as a functional
principle of society: It allows society to reproduce itself by keeping conflicts at
a latent level. Depending on their respective group affiliation, the chances of individuals
at securing decent standards of living are unequally distributed. Yet this inequality
is unlikely to erupt into (direct) violence. This applies for at least two reasons.
First, habitus and structure are inherently linked to each other. Individuals internalize
inequality at an early stage (habitus); as a result, they tend not to conceive of
situations in which inequalities materialize (structure) as illegitimate. Second,
the unequal distribution of chances to secure a decent living is mediated by symbols
and “naturalized” during that process. Individuals realize that hierarchies exist;
due to the plurality of symbols and the possibility to choose between them, however,
they perceive them as naturally given, as based on merit, as just. As a consequence,
the social genesis of inequality remains unacknowledged and potential class conflicts
are transformed into individualized competitions in social fields, intrapersonal psychic
conflicts or violence against scapegoats. The key concept of habitus-structure conflicts
is able to frame these different conflicts within a society and to relate them to
the underlying symbolic violence. In the conclusion, Lars Schmitt illustrates that
uncovering the hidden mechanisms of power may not only lead to emancipatory effects
at the individual level, but is also a prerequisite for mediating intercultural conflicts.