Conflict
resolution practices can be more or less “formal” challenging social groups’
communication skills as well as problem-solving “alarms”. Criminology gives us
the opportunity to look at “conflict resolution” practices in a rather
“(informal-) social-control-operating” view. In this scope social groups’
“instinct” regarding comprehension of “real” problems is crucial
for “conflict prevention” by invoking efficient practices. What is more every
social group’s main object to be stable and protect its own principles and values
mobilize members’ unity and coordination "resources" too.
This
ability of course presupposes a certain degree of “harmonic function” within
these groups which means that only the introduction of “peaceful” practices (as
“(more) liberal” or “innovative” alternatives to “conflict”) is not sufficient for
restoring a problematic “social control” function. Moreover these informal or sometimes
“instinctual” (collective) skills and accumulated knowledge of social groups
undoubtedly need to be more conscious and boosted through scientific
documentation and systematic implementation of relevant structured (formal) procedures.
As regards children’s basic social groups we usually stress "peaceful" resolution practices as more suitable for keeping both integration and
control standards. In this effort there are probably two limits towards well-operating
“conflict resolution” practices' settlement: first of all it is the presupposition of
social groups’ “harmonic function” and secondly they are children’s ages’ different
needs and “moral maturity”…
Expressing some “incomplete”
thoughts instead of a preface…
There has been conflict resolution practices
generally introduced almost as “panaceas”. In my opinion, we should be “square”
every time we use the term “it works” referring to “innovative” or “more
liberal” practices especially oriented to children’s educational contexts. This
is because there are probably specific preconditions which make any “innovative”
practice work.
