Understanding social conflict

The recent crackdown on the Tehreek-e-Labbaik Pakistan (TLP) was largely welcomed in the country. While the assertion of state authority in this case was not only justified but also urgently required, repressive action cannot be a substitute for understanding why social conflicts take place and how they can be resolved.

German thinkers Reimund Anhut and Wilhelm Heitmeyer provide a conflict explanation through their ‘social disintegration theory’. The crux of their argument is that social conflicts increase and become intractable when individuals fear or experience social disintegration. This fear is compounded by low levels of socio-emotional belonging and access to and participation in functional systems of society. In this situation, individuals experience lack of recognition, and deviant behaviour becomes common as they struggle to hold on to their diminishing social status in irresponsible ways.

The social disintegration theory posits that structural factors in politics and economics may impede individuals’ access to the functional systems and spaces of society. The approach here is to understand the regular TLP worker using this theory.

If we think about the sheer number of mostly male TLP workers willing to die in the streets to save the most important marker of their identity — ie religion — we would realise that behind the zealous proclamations of saving religion lies a deep-rooted fear of social disintegration in the event that society does not remain ‘religious’ enough. This is accompanied by fears of social and political constructs perceived in binary opposition to religion, for instance, modern liberal democracy.

Of course, this false fear has been cultivated over a long period of time by twisted interpretations of religion. But why is it that this narrative usually finds its adherents in economically marginalised groups? One explanation could be found in the presumed link between socioeconomic status and self-realisation. We can say that good living standards, access to basic services and a rational approach towards social problems are correlated. Whereas in the absence of these conditions, individuals are more likely to consume parochial ideas about social problems as they lack the analytical tools or adequate exposure for a sound analysis. Frankly, a bad economic situation doesn’t even give individuals much opportunity to debunk twisted narratives.

Moreover, in societies like Pakistan, individuals’ chances at social and ideational mobility are constrained by the imposition and internalisation of strict moral codes, so the only analytical tools left for them are twisted interpretations of religion which are not even a product of their own thinking. Therefore, narrow-minded parties are thriving even while having no alternative agendas for social problems.

Appropriation of public sphere by the state, structural inequality and adulteration of deliberative spaces have led to this situation where the ideational, economic and physical divide between individuals is only increasing. It is through this vast social distance that toxic self-righteousness emerges and dehumanising the other becomes possible, even easy, and so social conflict becomes widespread and violent. The chances of bridging this distance shrink when perceptions of hostility towards the other are high and compounded by illiteracy, indifference, poverty, un-or under-employment, and a fear of losing one’s position in society.

Calling the TLP regressive and shunning its workers in prisons won’t solve our predicament. The bitter pill to swallow here is that these individuals are members of Pakistani society. One way out of this mess is to address structural inequalities so that individuals get some respite to do the thinking for themselves. Maybe it’s time we tried that because the way we have dealt with society so far has only allowed some to prosper and integrate, while leaving an entire lot to just lag behind and become fodder for parochial, opportunist politics.

Published in The Express Tribune, December 10^th, 2018.

Like Opinion & Editorial on Facebook, follow @ETOpEd on Twitter to receive all updates on all our daily pieces.