We live in a contentious reality fraught with divisions and destructive conflicts and face increasingly complex challenges. The proliferation of new technologies that offer infinite opportunities to connect does not guarantee meaningful connections. This reality has been cultivated by an enduring and salient feature of the established Western thinking and the scientific traditions it spawned: an individualistic-hegemonic ethos. This prevailing spirit generated and preserved a dominant individual and a hierarchical social infrastructure. Positioning the individual at the forefront, independent and pre-existing, deepens separation between self and other, and obstructs healthy human connections. In a constant struggle to sustain a positive self-image, a person is thrust into a defensive mode to protect self-boundaries. The other is often undermined to boost the self. In so doing, the structure of the relationship is distorted, and a marginalized, deprived other is left voiceless and excluded. The ability to learn and grow from differences and conflicts is marred by identity concerns, cultural beliefs, biases, and emotional defensive reactions. In such a complex time of rapid change, it is imperative to develop new approaches to forming deeper and meaningful connections.The seeds for this study were planted in my early democratic and dialogic practices when we experimented with innovative social environments, particularly in the educational system in Israel. Interestingly, although we created participative environments with significantly less violence than in conventional schools, in retrospect, missing was a profound conceptual understanding of the relational nature of our being, the value of the other and the opportunity in conflict for learning and growth. The mindset was still individually-oriented. Similarly, in the field of conflict resolution, the traditional approach to conflict is also rooted in an individualist mode of thinking, which sees the individual as both the driving force in conflict and as accountable for problem-solving and reaching agreements (Bush & Folger, 2005; Putnam, 1994). Accordingly, conflict resolution processes such as negotiation and mediation focus on the task and substantive issues to the exclusion of critical relational nuances and processes. Important social-psychological dynamics that fuel conflict and prevent constructive relationships may be overlooked. With a goal to advance an understanding of the relational foundation of conflict where it arises, evolves, and potentially transforms, this inquiry offers a nuanced, contextual-relational examination through two conceptual frameworks: 1) A social constructionist orientation that sets the relational foundation of our existence as well as a critical eye on the negative ramifications of the individualist ethos; and 2) Social-psychological barriers to beneficial relationship and conflict transformation (Ross & Ward, 1995; Sherman & Cohen, 2006), specifically defensive reactions and affirmative processes to alleviate them. Unlike an individualist perspective typically applied by mainstream psychologists, defensive behaviors are viewed in this study as relationally constructed, emerging from a person’s relationships rather than from an internal, fixed mental state. Together the frameworks aim at shedding light on the relational dynamics underpinning conflict and its potential transformation. They also support a shift in the notion of self and other toward a more relational perspective to conflict.The question at the center of my study is: Can a social constructionist orientation along with knowledge on social-psychological barriers deepen the understanding of the relational nature of conflict and conflict transformation and what are the implications of this understanding on practice? Shifting from an individualist to a relational unit is promising for conflict transformation. It allows both addressing immediate problems as well as advancing long-term change in positions of power. The importance of the social environment for transformation, especially systemic changes and practices, is presented. To generate long-term transformation, a combination of both reflective processes along with participative organizational practices are proposed: 1) Insight — reflective work on issues related to the notion of self-other, and 2) Action — Structural organizational practices to support dialogue and transformation. I present examples of models and organizational practices from my practice in democratic and dialogic education including Parliament, conflict resolution system, and pluralistic learning, as well as stories and practices from current democratic and dialogic projects. The proposed contextual-relational model to transforming conflict is the outcome of both my dialogic practice as well as this theoretical inquiry
