This paper critically evaluates suppression as a technique of conflict resolution, arguing that it is fundamentally inadequate because it denies the root causes of conflict rather than addressing them. Drawing on theoretical definitions and real-world case studies — including apartheid-era South Africa and the Northern Ireland conflict — the paper demonstrates that suppression tends to exacerbate tensions rather than resolve them. It contrasts suppression with constructive conflict resolution methods such as dialogue, negotiation, and collaborative engagement, concluding that genuine resolution requires transforming conflict through democratic and communicative means rather than forceful suppression.
The issue of conflict resolution is a predominant aspect of contemporary life. Conflict has become endemic, with numerous wars and other forms of conflict of varying degrees and intensities taking place throughout the world. The processes and techniques of conflict resolution are therefore becoming increasingly important in dealing with these ongoing disputes.
Conflict resolution encompasses a wide range of techniques as well as theoretical and practical procedures. Suppression, recognized as one of these techniques, is sometimes applied in extreme forms of conflict. While some argue that suppression is a legitimate resolution technique, others point out that the very definition of suppression is counter and antithetical to the spirit of conflict resolution.
Suppression as a conflict resolution technique is not an adequate resolution procedure for several reasons. First, by definition, it suppresses or denies the causes of conflict and therefore allows those causes to continue and possibly worsen. The common meaning of the term points to this implication. For example, Merriam-Webster defines suppression as "the act of withholding or withdrawing" and "the conscious intentional exclusion from consciousness of a thought or feeling" (Merriam-Webster Online). It also refers to the use of force rather than discourse or negotiation: "forceful prevention; putting down by power" (ibid).
Most importantly, suppression cannot be seen as genuine "resolution" because it risks perpetuating the conflict in reality. By not addressing root causes, it can actually inflame tensions further. This also relates to the fact that resolving conflict through biased power dominance and assertion cannot truly be called resolution — it is better understood as an avoidance of the conflict's underlying causes.
For some, suppression may appear to be a sensible approach. However, if it is used by a powerful agent as a strategy in a power struggle, it may be seen as asking human beings to deny democratic evolution (Leymann). Suppression also forecloses the possibility of a more positive and collaborative approach to conflict resolution.
Another important consideration is that conflict resolution should not be confused with a desire to deny the reality of conflict as an important mechanism in society — which is another danger inherent in the technique of suppression. From a sociological point of view, conflict is an inevitable and, according to many theorists, necessary part of social evolution and development. Conflict is therefore not always seen as intrinsically negative.
As Crawford and Bodine explain:
"Conflict arises from a discord of needs, drives, wishes, and/or demands. Conflict in and of itself is neither positive nor negative. Rather, it is the response to conflict that transforms it into either a competitive, destructive experience or a constructive challenge offering the opportunity for growth." (Crawford and Bodine)
"Dialogue and negotiation contrasted with suppression"
"Historical examples where suppression failed and dialogue succeeded"
"Conflict transformation as the true goal of resolution"
You’re 34% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 3 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.